What the Evangelists called ‘Hebrew’ was actually Aramaic, the lingua franca of the 1st Century.
The language that we call Hebrew had become a liturgical language at that time, and not many understood it which is why an Aramaic translation of the Tanakh (The Targum) was made and was usually read in the Synagogues after the original Hebrew was read.
Plus, the word ‘Golgotha’ (which John describes as Hebrew) is from the Aramaic ‘Golgalta’ (sp?) while the Hebrew form is ‘Golgoleth’.
Another is ‘Bar’ as in ‘Son of’ (for example ‘Bar-Abbas’ ‘Son of Abbas’ or ‘Son of the Father’ and ‘Simon Bar-Yonah’) as opposed to Hebrew ‘Ben’ (As in Judah Ben-Hur)
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
Dear Patrick:
Do you have a citation or further argument for this position regarding the use of Hebrew? I had heard that this theory was mitigated when certain texts were found in excavations, indicating Hebrew to have beeen a living language in the First Century.
By the early half of the 20th century, modern scholars reached a nearly unanimous opinion that Aramaic became a spoken language in the land of Israel by the start of Israel’s Hellenistic Period in the 4th century BC, and thus Hebrew ceased to function as a spoken language around the same time. However, during the latter half of the 20th century, accumulating archeological evidence and especially linguistic analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls has qualified the previous consensus. Alongside Aramaic, Hebrew also flourished as a living spoken language. Hebrew flourished until near the end of the Roman Period, when it continued on as a literary language by the Byzantine Period in the 4th century AD.
The exact roles of Aramaic and Hebrew remain hotly debated. A trilingual scenario has been proposed for the land of Israel. Hebrew functioned as the local mother tongue, Aramaic functioned as the international language with the rest of the Mideast, and eventually Greek functioned as another international language with the eastern areas of the Roman Empire. Communities of Jews (and non-Jews) are known, who immigrated to Judea from these other lands and continued to speak Aramaic or Greek.
Aramaic displacing Hebrew as a spoken language. (Abbreviations adjusted.)
Do you think this argument from archeology is mistaken? What is the basis for asserting that John did not mean Hebrew when he wrote “εβραιστι” (Jn 19:20; cf Lk 2:38)?
Any contraindications would be interesting to know about.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
